What Bible do you have or have read?

minahasa · 02-28-2011, 12:58 PM

The Bible is an interesting piece to read. I've read few parts of it, but never the whole of it. As a text, one thing for sure, it couldn't be read 'as is'.

Ratmagiclady · 02-28-2011, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by minahasa

The Bible is an interesting piece to read. I've read few parts of it, but never the whole of it. As a text, one thing for sure, it couldn't be read 'as is'.

I liked the part about 'All This Is Vanity.' There ya go.

**Ash** · 02-28-2011, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Phil_Rose

I own The Holy Bible by the Manic Street Preachers which is a fine album. As for the book, I find religion and Christianity to be a violent and immoral thing and thus try to stay well clear of it.

And so we make up our own morals - from the state of our world and how we treat each other in it, it looks like we're doing a fine job of it too.

Originally posted by les3547

My attitude toward people is, believe what you will, practice as you please. But don't act like you know when you don't know. Don't use false knowledge as a basis for denigrating other's beliefs. Don't act superior when you are as ignorant as the rest of us about what is the creative element behind life's evolution.

Spot on Les. Being human however negates this since not only do we bring our own interpretations of the truth (cf. the blind men and the elephant story), but we don't know what we don't know, and assert what we do know as (or believe in this case) as the complete picture.

Originally posted by les3547

What affects gene change today cannot be shown to be an evolutive feature, but rather merely "adjustments" to existing systems. Because a thermostat can self regulate doesn't mean it created its own self regulating system. The current equating of mere adjustment to evolutive development is so rampant on the atheistic science side, you can't possibly get anyone doing it to separate the two mechanisms into their proper categories of change.

Further, even what I am calling "adjustments" cannot be safely attributed to randomness. When you "watch it happen," how do you know what is behind the change? And as I said, what we watch happen today is 99+ percent destructive or useless, and even when it helps it does little more than adjust an existing system -- bigger bird beaks, darker moth color, fruit fly ***** alteration -- which is impossible to show is the basis for creating the system in the first place.

Good points Les. Order out of chaos (or nothing) by chance is a dubious supposition. The genetic arguments assume a preexisting order and functional life form. So now what? Since there could not have been any personal accounts of the events surrounding the foundations of creation there has to be an element of faith.

Ratmagiclady · 02-28-2011, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Ash

And so we make up our own morals - from the state of our world and how we treat each other in it, it looks like we're doing a fine job of it too.

Seems like none of the state of things is here for *any* lack of claiming of absolutes.

In fact, it seems that people who claim 'Absolute order' are always doing so to justify or push the blame when they do something that'd otherwise be obviously-*wrong.*

Quote:

Spot on Les. Being human however negates this since not only do we bring our own interpretations of the truth

Same kind of fallacy: "If you can't know, being human means you must obey something else, and when that doesn't work, it's the fault of being human, which isn't/shouldn't be how things are set up to prove how 'flawed' you are, but how 'righteous' the system is... And on and on."

Funny how that all depends on gainsaying science, somehow.

You'd think that if we humans were all so by-nature-flawed, people would want to know *all about it,* not deny it, then threaten/punish anyone for talking details.

Did I mention 'Vanity?'

Quote:

Good points Les. Order out of chaos (or nothing) by chance is a dubious supposition.

It's also a disingenuous supposition to claim that's what all theories and observations are actually claiming.

That's all you guys, actually.

Vanity. All this is vanity.

Quote:

The genetic arguments assume a preexisting order and functional life form.

No, you do. Vanity.

Quote:

So now what?

Now, *this.* If you can't accept that, that's not the rest of the world's problem.

Quote:

Since there could not have been any personal accounts of the events surrounding the foundations of creation there has to be an element of faith.

Or 'faith' and 'personal' and 'accounts' and 'foundations' aren't actually anywhere in the same league as 'Creation' as advertised?

Vanity.

Elements, now there's a word.

Never tell the Universe (or a human) 'could not.'

Probably the second most dangerous words to pray in *my* religion, right after, 'Lady, I'm bored.'

(That's why *my* vanity is all ironical. But I still love me a good dataset.

)

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 02-28-2011 at 01:47 PM.

Nesster · 02-28-2011, 01:59 PM

...mythology in part was a living memory, before writing, and it encoded - often multiple meanings in a single story - essential information (e.g. memory of an eruption, earth quake, tsunami; time and calendar keeping via star observation) that is formulated in a way that keeps the information intact.

As such, just as with today's science metaphysics, the creation stories in the Bible are more interesting to our identity than practical 'truth'... not to say there isn't practical truth encoded in both.

There's the whole business of keeping track of equinoxes and solstices against the stars - this seems to have been one of the first things humans began to retain in a systematic way, very early indeed. The precession of the equinoxes gives us some timings - e.g. some time befor 6500 BC enough was known to understand the changing of the ages - Cancer -> Gemini -> Taurus -> Aires -> Pisces -> Aquarius. (In the Americas, people had their own versions of these; star tracking seems to have been an universal.)

What's less well known is that when Ages changed, these usually were associated with Floods or Firestorms (and in polytheism, the change of Gods: e.g. Chaos -> Ourangos/Gaia -> Kronos -> Zeus)... The world 'came to an end' and then re-constituted, with everything back in place, only under a new 'ruler' - i.e. the equinox sign.

The Bible, by instituting monotheism, lost a lot of this information, and other such is encoded in the remaining myths. For example, the Israelites' Golden Calf hearks back to both the Egyptian Cow and the passing of the Age from Taurus to Aries... which also seems to have been the central mystery in the Mithras cult that came later, with its images of sacrificing the Bull... Vergil famously writes about the coming of the Piscean Age, with the 'return' of the Virgin (Virgo) - i.e. going back to the first Golden Age 6500BC when Summer Solstice was in Virgo, now at the Autumn Equinox. When Saturn and Jupiter (the keepers of time) came into a great conjunction in Pisces in 6BC, everyone who understood the old lore (the Magi, Pythagoreans, etc) took this as the beginning of the new Age. Indeed, the Christian mythology uses old imagery to gain significance - just as the sacrifice of the Bull was worshipped in association with the change to the next Age, now the sacrifice of the Lamb (e.g. baby Ram) is worshipped.

These things are not meant to be blasphemous, only to show how deep and long the resonances are.

Ratmagiclady · 02-28-2011, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Nesster

These things are not meant to be blasphemous, only to show how deep and long the resonances are.

True, the only problem about a lot of how the specific books are treated is that actually, a lot of those symbols are reactions to inversions upon inversions upon inversions of those very meanings. Then they're supposed to override science, then they're supposed to be claimed to have retroactively become the 'one truth' when in fact they're often deliberately *backwards.*

Some of it's kinda 'punk rock,' really, but that doesn't make it 'eternal law,' you know?

Any more than the point of 'punk rock' is to break everything. Sometimes the point is to break *that* thing, *cause* people are so attached to their Bmers *innocent whistle* that they think they're more important than *people.*

You don't rewrite the Ages over it, y'know?

Oh, as for this:

Quote:

What's less well known is that when Ages changed, these usually were associated with Floods or Firestorms (and in polytheism, the change of Gods: e.g. Chaos -> Ourangos/Gaia -> Kronos -> Zeus)... The world 'came to an end' and then re-constituted, with everything back in place, only under a new 'ruler' - i.e. the equinox sign.

Linear monotheists often blow *this* one big time. This is not linear. This is not an 'overthrow,' it's a *process,* really.

Unlike pseudo-history, the myths of the Titans aren't about 'established order from chaos, once and for all,' they're about ....consciousness of it. Mother may birth and Time may swallow... (however temporarily) and there's some fuss about it, but what the Olympians represent for us, well... More than bad history or bad science.

Never mind absolutes to kneel to in that way.

Mind the literalism, it may be unbecoming in you monotheists, but it just doesn't fly with the rest of the world. There's a reason for that.

(Did you ever check out that Suhkavati video presentation of Campbell, I'd suggested, last time we were on comparative theology? It'd probably would help get us on similar pages. When you guys try to talk Pagan or Eastern Myth, you sound like you're talking about Batman or something.

**Ash** · 02-28-2011, 03:46 PM

Someone here claims to be (or at least insinuates to be) knowledgeable in these issues whilst every one else is vain. Bodes for an enlightening discussion...

Ratmagiclady · 02-28-2011, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Someone here claims to be (or at least insinuates to be) knowledgeable in these issues whilst every one else is vain. Bodes for an enlightening discussion...

Don't worry, we'll forgive you. Nyuck, nyuck.

What's that got to do with the price of Russian butter, privileges of orthodoxy, or M-theory?

Nothing, of course, that's the point.

Doesn't change, obviate, or override, what we can know scientifically, which is also the point.

You can call other people 'prideful' and take that to the usual extremes or not, and that doesn't change anything *either,* which is also the point.

Does this mean our sophistic playings with language, regardless of the arguments from ignorance and authority some claim are not fallacious, (as long as it's *their* special book/translation/interpretation) actually limit reality and possibility? No. And that's *definitely* the point.

Does it override one iota of reality?

No.

Definitely that's the point. And definitely that's vanity.

Does calling those who point it out... what... Vain? Change a damn thing about it? Make it not 'ad hominem?'

No.

Claims otherwise in the end, depend on attacking the 'bona fides' of anyone who says 'It ain't so.'

Why?

Yeah, vanity.

Even displaced vanity.

Me, well, if I've got any left at this point, I assure you it's temporary. Meanwhile, Lady knows we really need to be looking at the datasets, not trying to justify denying them or scapegoating each other about some 'sin' that'll somehow make what ain't working start working.

Who knows. Maybe what I am to *you* ain't so 'vain.' Maybe it's a little bit of lessons from what maybe should both humble and ennoble us all that *Gods* know shouldn't be about lil ol' me by now, one way or another.

Maybe it's cooler than that. Maybe it's a *lot* cooler than me, and a lot less *stupid* than this argument.

Dig?

You wanna know about *vanity,* in the sense you reduce it to, Ash, *vanity* is some Christians waving a book in my face about every single aspect of my life, and then claiming the material world and people *must really be bad and ineffably mysterious* when they *don't like it when reality or tiny statistical orders of uncertainty doesn't massage their senses of supposed order.*

I'll tell you one thing, by the way: that kind of displacement didn't wash when I was subject to the Archdiocese of Boston when I was a kid, and I'm *sure* not gonna rearrange my physical and metaphysical universe around it *now.*

Seriously, dude, these people can't even cope with everyone not being breeding ovens, *in suburbia.* You think they know a blessed thing about cosmic orders? Never mind simple physics?

The pitiable thing about it all is they're just scared. And scrabble for whatever rude control they can manage, then try to rearrange their word to justify it all. Then have the temerity to say it's someone *else* who's too prideful for saying... No, man. It's bigger. It's cooler, and neither you nor I can control it like that, whatever you do to me or people like me.

*That's* 'vanity' of that order.

Pentaxor · 03-01-2011, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Green_Manelishi

I thought it was obvious.

well you thought wrong obviously.

les3547 · 03-01-2011, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

well you thought wrong obviously.

I don't think he was trying to make a big point, it seems obvious to me anyway.

In response to this:

"I am though a history buff of sorts and The Bible is just that too me, a book of historical events which may or may not have occurred; that's the funny thing about history, you don't truly know unless you've experienced it yourself in the making otherwise all knowledge is third party hand offs."

He answered:

"Funny though the number of historical events, written about in books other than the Bible, that are accepted as truth despite noone currently alive ever witnessing."

The first idea was that since much of history is based on written documents, but we don't know if writers wrote truthfully, we accept a lot of things we cannot experientially verify.

He answered, basically, in agreement. At least, I thought that was it.

GeneV · 03-01-2011, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by les3547

I don't think he was trying to make a big point, it seems obvious to me anyway.

In response to this:

"I am though a history buff of sorts and The Bible is just that too me, a book of historical events which may or may not have occurred; that's the funny thing about history, you don't truly know unless you've experienced it yourself in the making otherwise all knowledge is third party hand offs."

He answered:

"Funny though the number of historical events, written about in books other than the Bible, that are accepted as truth despite noone currently alive ever witnessing."

The first idea was that since much of history is based on written documents, but we don't know if writers wrote truthfully, we accept a lot of things we cannot experientially verify.

He answered, basically, in agreement. At least, I thought that was it.

You guys are "obviously" on the same wave length, if that is indeed what he meant.

les3547 · 03-01-2011, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

You guys are "obviously" on the same wave length, if that is indeed what he meant.

I was simply trying to be welcoming to a member who dared post in this sometimes contentious thread; plus I can't see why you zeroed in on his statement, it appears innocuous enough to me. Yet the energy with which you pressed him for elaboration along with Pentaxor's sarcasm for deciding not to respond seemed out of proportion to the relatively simplistic statement he ventured, especially since there were a lot more controversial ideas being thrown around to pick for scrutiny. If I were him, I might be wondering "what the bleep did I say?"

GeneV · 03-01-2011, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by les3547

I was simply trying to be welcoming to a member who dared post in this sometimes contentious thread; plus I can't see why you zeroed in on his statement, it appears innocuous enough to me. Yet the energy with which you pressed him for elaboration along with Pentaxor's sarcasm for deciding not to respond seemed out of proportion to the relatively simplistic statement he ventured, especially since there were a lot more controversial ideas being thrown around to pick for scrutiny. If I were him, I might be wondering "what the bleep did I say?"

I read his statement as implying that the bible is less charitably treated than other historical writings. I don't want to get into an argument with you now, but I think what I said and what I asked was polite and the cryptic response was less than friendly.

By the way, he has been posting here longer than you have, and he has never had a problem taking care of himself where his belief in the bible is conserned.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/91552-what...tml#post944468
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/96285-devi...tml#post995310
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/96906-prof...tml#post994101
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/96992-orig...tml#post991939
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/96992-orig...tml#post991488

kryss · 03-01-2011, 05:06 PM

Personally I stopped reading fairy tales when I was 5,replaced by actual science and FACT.Religion is a placebo to control and numb any one with any intelligence.

les3547 · 03-01-2011, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

I read his statement as implying that the bible is less charitably treated than other historical writings. I don't want to get into an argument with you now, but I think what I said and what I asked was polite and the cryptic response was less than friendly.

By the way, he has been posting here longer than you have, and he has never had a problem taking care of himself where his belief in the bible is conserned.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/91552-what...tml#post944468
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/96285-devi...tml#post995310
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/96906-prof...tml#post994101
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/96992-orig...tml#post991939
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/96992-orig...tml#post991488

Well, that was the other thing that occurred to me . . . that you knew him.

02-28-2011, 02:31 PM	#336
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by Nesster These things are not meant to be blasphemous, only to show how deep and long the resonances are. True, the only problem about a lot of how the specific books are treated is that actually, a lot of those symbols are reactions to inversions upon inversions upon inversions of those very meanings. Then they're supposed to override science, then they're supposed to be claimed to have retroactively become the 'one truth' when in fact they're often deliberately backwards. Some of it's kinda 'punk rock,' really, but that doesn't make it 'eternal law,' you know? Any more than the point of 'punk rock' is to break everything. Sometimes the point is to break that thing, cause people are so attached to their Bmers innocent whistle that they think they're more important than people. You don't rewrite the Ages over it, y'know? Oh, as for this: Quote: What's less well known is that when Ages changed, these usually were associated with Floods or Firestorms (and in polytheism, the change of Gods: e.g. Chaos -> Ourangos/Gaia -> Kronos -> Zeus)... The world 'came to an end' and then re-constituted, with everything back in place, only under a new 'ruler' - i.e. the equinox sign. Linear monotheists often blow this one big time. This is not linear. This is not an 'overthrow,' it's a process, really. Unlike pseudo-history, the myths of the Titans aren't about 'established order from chaos, once and for all,' they're about ....consciousness of it. Mother may birth and Time may swallow... (however temporarily) and there's some fuss about it, but what the Olympians represent for us, well... More than bad history or bad science. Never mind absolutes to kneel to in that way. Mind the literalism, it may be unbecoming in you monotheists, but it just doesn't fly with the rest of the world. There's a reason for that. (Did you ever check out that Suhkavati video presentation of Campbell, I'd suggested, last time we were on comparative theology? It'd probably would help get us on similar pages. When you guys try to talk Pagan or Eastern Myth, you sound like you're talking about Batman or something. Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 02-28-2011 at 02:39 PM.

02-28-2011, 04:29 PM	#338
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by Ash Someone here claims to be (or at least insinuates to be) knowledgeable in these issues whilst every one else is vain. Bodes for an enlightening discussion... Don't worry, we'll forgive you. Nyuck, nyuck. What's that got to do with the price of Russian butter, privileges of orthodoxy, or M-theory? Nothing, of course, that's the point. Doesn't change, obviate, or override, what we can know scientifically, which is also the point. You can call other people 'prideful' and take that to the usual extremes or not, and that doesn't change anything either, which is also the point. Does this mean our sophistic playings with language, regardless of the arguments from ignorance and authority some claim are not fallacious, (as long as it's their special book/translation/interpretation) actually limit reality and possibility? No. And that's definitely the point. Does it override one iota of reality? No. Definitely that's the point. And definitely that's vanity. Does calling those who point it out... what... Vain? Change a damn thing about it? Make it not 'ad hominem?' No. Claims otherwise in the end, depend on attacking the 'bona fides' of anyone who says 'It ain't so.' Why? Yeah, vanity. Even displaced vanity. Me, well, if I've got any left at this point, I assure you it's temporary. Meanwhile, Lady knows we really need to be looking at the datasets, not trying to justify denying them or scapegoating each other about some 'sin' that'll somehow make what ain't working start working. Who knows. Maybe what I am to you ain't so 'vain.' Maybe it's a little bit of lessons from what maybe should both humble and ennoble us all that Gods know shouldn't be about lil ol' me by now, one way or another. Maybe it's cooler than that. Maybe it's a lot cooler than me, and a lot less stupid than this argument. Dig? You wanna know about vanity, in the sense you reduce it to, Ash, vanity is some Christians waving a book in my face about every single aspect of my life, and then claiming the material world and people must really be bad and ineffably mysterious when they don't like it when reality or tiny statistical orders of uncertainty doesn't massage their senses of supposed order. I'll tell you one thing, by the way: that kind of displacement didn't wash when I was subject to the Archdiocese of Boston when I was a kid, and I'm sure not gonna rearrange my physical and metaphysical universe around it now. Seriously, dude, these people can't even cope with everyone not being breeding ovens, in suburbia. You think they know a blessed thing about cosmic orders? Never mind simple physics? The pitiable thing about it all is they're just scared. And scrabble for whatever rude control they can manage, then try to rearrange their word to justify it all. Then have the temerity to say it's someone else who's too prideful for saying... No, man. It's bigger. It's cooler, and neither you nor I can control it like that, whatever you do to me or people like me. That's 'vanity' of that order. Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 02-28-2011 at 04:50 PM.

03-01-2011, 05:05 PM	#343
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by les3547 I was simply trying to be welcoming to a member who dared post in this sometimes contentious thread; plus I can't see why you zeroed in on his statement, it appears innocuous enough to me. Yet the energy with which you pressed him for elaboration along with Pentaxor's sarcasm for deciding not to respond seemed out of proportion to the relatively simplistic statement he ventured, especially since there were a lot more controversial ideas being thrown around to pick for scrutiny. If I were him, I might be wondering "what the bleep did I say?" I read his statement as implying that the bible is less charitably treated than other historical writings. I don't want to get into an argument with you now, but I think what I said and what I asked was polite and the cryptic response was less than friendly. By the way, he has been posting here longer than you have, and he has never had a problem taking care of himself where his belief in the bible is conserned. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/91552-what...tml#post944468 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/96285-devi...tml#post995310 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/96906-prof...tml#post994101 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/96992-orig...tml#post991939 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/96992-orig...tml#post991488 Last edited by GeneV; 03-01-2011 at 05:29 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Suggestion Read more at.....	yusuf	Site Suggestions and Help	7	10-08-2010 12:14 AM
It's what happens when you don't read the bill...	GingeM	General Talk	19	05-22-2010 06:27 AM
What/who wrote the bible?	wildman	General Talk	49	04-22-2010 02:29 PM
People Read and Yeallow	4Vn_Shotter	Post Your Photos!	4	11-14-2009 08:27 AM
Why does my Jupiter - 9 read as 1.4?	Gooshin	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	28	08-27-2008 07:37 PM

02-28-2011, 12:58 PM	#331
minahasa Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Minahasa, North Celebes (Sulawesi) Photos: Albums Posts: 586	The Bible is an interesting piece to read. I've read few parts of it, but never the whole of it. As a text, one thing for sure, it couldn't be read 'as is'.

02-28-2011, 01:04 PM	#332
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by minahasa The Bible is an interesting piece to read. I've read few parts of it, but never the whole of it. As a text, one thing for sure, it couldn't be read 'as is'. I liked the part about 'All This Is Vanity.' There ya go.

02-28-2011, 01:15 PM	#333
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by Phil_Rose I own The Holy Bible by the Manic Street Preachers which is a fine album. As for the book, I find religion and Christianity to be a violent and immoral thing and thus try to stay well clear of it. And so we make up our own morals - from the state of our world and how we treat each other in it, it looks like we're doing a fine job of it too. Originally posted by les3547 My attitude toward people is, believe what you will, practice as you please. But don't act like you know when you don't know. Don't use false knowledge as a basis for denigrating other's beliefs. Don't act superior when you are as ignorant as the rest of us about what is the creative element behind life's evolution. Spot on Les. Being human however negates this since not only do we bring our own interpretations of the truth (cf. the blind men and the elephant story), but we don't know what we don't know, and assert what we do know as (or believe in this case) as the complete picture. Originally posted by les3547 What affects gene change today cannot be shown to be an evolutive feature, but rather merely "adjustments" to existing systems. Because a thermostat can self regulate doesn't mean it created its own self regulating system. The current equating of mere adjustment to evolutive development is so rampant on the atheistic science side, you can't possibly get anyone doing it to separate the two mechanisms into their proper categories of change. Further, even what I am calling "adjustments" cannot be safely attributed to randomness. When you "watch it happen," how do you know what is behind the change? And as I said, what we watch happen today is 99+ percent destructive or useless, and even when it helps it does little more than adjust an existing system -- bigger bird beaks, darker moth color, fruit fly ***** alteration -- which is impossible to show is the basis for creating the system in the first place. Good points Les. Order out of chaos (or nothing) by chance is a dubious supposition. The genetic arguments assume a preexisting order and functional life form. So now what? Since there could not have been any personal accounts of the events surrounding the foundations of creation there has to be an element of faith.

02-28-2011, 01:33 PM	#334
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by Ash And so we make up our own morals - from the state of our world and how we treat each other in it, it looks like we're doing a fine job of it too. Seems like none of the state of things is here for any lack of claiming of absolutes. In fact, it seems that people who claim 'Absolute order' are always doing so to justify or push the blame when they do something that'd otherwise be obviously-wrong. Quote: Spot on Les. Being human however negates this since not only do we bring our own interpretations of the truth Same kind of fallacy: "If you can't know, being human means you must obey something else, and when that doesn't work, it's the fault of being human, which isn't/shouldn't be how things are set up to prove how 'flawed' you are, but how 'righteous' the system is... And on and on." Funny how that all depends on gainsaying science, somehow. You'd think that if we humans were all so by-nature-flawed, people would want to know all about it, not deny it, then threaten/punish anyone for talking details. Did I mention 'Vanity?' Quote: Good points Les. Order out of chaos (or nothing) by chance is a dubious supposition. It's also a disingenuous supposition to claim that's what all theories and observations are actually claiming. That's all you guys, actually. Vanity. All this is vanity. Quote: The genetic arguments assume a preexisting order and functional life form. No, you do. Vanity. Quote: So now what? Now, this. If you can't accept that, that's not the rest of the world's problem. Quote: Since there could not have been any personal accounts of the events surrounding the foundations of creation there has to be an element of faith. Or 'faith' and 'personal' and 'accounts' and 'foundations' aren't actually anywhere in the same league as 'Creation' as advertised? Vanity. Elements, now there's a word. Never tell the Universe (or a human) 'could not.' Probably the second most dangerous words to pray in my religion, right after, 'Lady, I'm bored.' (That's why my vanity is all ironical. But I still love me a good dataset. ) Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 02-28-2011 at 01:47 PM.

02-28-2011, 01:59 PM	#335
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	...mythology in part was a living memory, before writing, and it encoded - often multiple meanings in a single story - essential information (e.g. memory of an eruption, earth quake, tsunami; time and calendar keeping via star observation) that is formulated in a way that keeps the information intact. As such, just as with today's science metaphysics, the creation stories in the Bible are more interesting to our identity than practical 'truth'... not to say there isn't practical truth encoded in both. There's the whole business of keeping track of equinoxes and solstices against the stars - this seems to have been one of the first things humans began to retain in a systematic way, very early indeed. The precession of the equinoxes gives us some timings - e.g. some time befor 6500 BC enough was known to understand the changing of the ages - Cancer -> Gemini -> Taurus -> Aires -> Pisces -> Aquarius. (In the Americas, people had their own versions of these; star tracking seems to have been an universal.) What's less well known is that when Ages changed, these usually were associated with Floods or Firestorms (and in polytheism, the change of Gods: e.g. Chaos -> Ourangos/Gaia -> Kronos -> Zeus)... The world 'came to an end' and then re-constituted, with everything back in place, only under a new 'ruler' - i.e. the equinox sign. The Bible, by instituting monotheism, lost a lot of this information, and other such is encoded in the remaining myths. For example, the Israelites' Golden Calf hearks back to both the Egyptian Cow and the passing of the Age from Taurus to Aries... which also seems to have been the central mystery in the Mithras cult that came later, with its images of sacrificing the Bull... Vergil famously writes about the coming of the Piscean Age, with the 'return' of the Virgin (Virgo) - i.e. going back to the first Golden Age 6500BC when Summer Solstice was in Virgo, now at the Autumn Equinox. When Saturn and Jupiter (the keepers of time) came into a great conjunction in Pisces in 6BC, everyone who understood the old lore (the Magi, Pythagoreans, etc) took this as the beginning of the new Age. Indeed, the Christian mythology uses old imagery to gain significance - just as the sacrifice of the Bull was worshipped in association with the change to the next Age, now the sacrifice of the Lamb (e.g. baby Ram) is worshipped. These things are not meant to be blasphemous, only to show how deep and long the resonances are.

02-28-2011, 03:46 PM	#337
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Someone here claims to be (or at least insinuates to be) knowledgeable in these issues whilst every one else is vain. Bodes for an enlightening discussion...

03-01-2011, 12:50 AM	#339
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Green_Manelishi I thought it was obvious. well you thought wrong obviously.

03-01-2011, 08:32 AM	#340
les3547 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Sebastopol, California Photos: Albums Posts: 2,020	Originally posted by Pentaxor well you thought wrong obviously. I don't think he was trying to make a big point, it seems obvious to me anyway. In response to this: "I am though a history buff of sorts and The Bible is just that too me, a book of historical events which may or may not have occurred; that's the funny thing about history, you don't truly know unless you've experienced it yourself in the making otherwise all knowledge is third party hand offs." He answered: "Funny though the number of historical events, written about in books other than the Bible, that are accepted as truth despite noone currently alive ever witnessing." The first idea was that since much of history is based on written documents, but we don't know if writers wrote truthfully, we accept a lot of things we cannot experientially verify. He answered, basically, in agreement. At least, I thought that was it.

03-01-2011, 03:49 PM	#341
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by les3547 I don't think he was trying to make a big point, it seems obvious to me anyway. In response to this: "I am though a history buff of sorts and The Bible is just that too me, a book of historical events which may or may not have occurred; that's the funny thing about history, you don't truly know unless you've experienced it yourself in the making otherwise all knowledge is third party hand offs." He answered: "Funny though the number of historical events, written about in books other than the Bible, that are accepted as truth despite noone currently alive ever witnessing." The first idea was that since much of history is based on written documents, but we don't know if writers wrote truthfully, we accept a lot of things we cannot experientially verify. He answered, basically, in agreement. At least, I thought that was it. You guys are "obviously" on the same wave length, if that is indeed what he meant.

03-01-2011, 04:18 PM	#342
les3547 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Sebastopol, California Photos: Albums Posts: 2,020	Originally posted by GeneV You guys are "obviously" on the same wave length, if that is indeed what he meant. I was simply trying to be welcoming to a member who dared post in this sometimes contentious thread; plus I can't see why you zeroed in on his statement, it appears innocuous enough to me. Yet the energy with which you pressed him for elaboration along with Pentaxor's sarcasm for deciding not to respond seemed out of proportion to the relatively simplistic statement he ventured, especially since there were a lot more controversial ideas being thrown around to pick for scrutiny. If I were him, I might be wondering "what the bleep did I say?"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-01-2011, 05:06 PM	#344
kryss Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Alberta Posts: 218	Personally I stopped reading fairy tales when I was 5,replaced by actual science and FACT.Religion is a placebo to control and numb any one with any intelligence.

03-01-2011, 05:31 PM	#345
les3547 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Sebastopol, California Photos: Albums Posts: 2,020	Originally posted by GeneV I read his statement as implying that the bible is less charitably treated than other historical writings. I don't want to get into an argument with you now, but I think what I said and what I asked was polite and the cryptic response was less than friendly. By the way, he has been posting here longer than you have, and he has never had a problem taking care of himself where his belief in the bible is conserned. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/91552-what...tml#post944468 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/96285-devi...tml#post995310 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/96906-prof...tml#post994101 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/96992-orig...tml#post991939 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/96992-orig...tml#post991488 Well, that was the other thing that occurred to me . . . that you knew him.